Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't be too quick to gloat. Much could change come contract negotiation time. I won't predict what will happen. Hubristic attitudes are typical of progs, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
In other words if those white-collar employees were smart enough to be in a union, or to join the union the drivers and warehouse people are in, the company would not be able to take this kind of unilateral action.
This action is the effect of the cause, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. See how cause and effect works. Basic analysis and writing skill, taught in high school. Cause = the dearly beloved PPACA, Effect = employers dropping coverage, going to job sharing (aka under 29 hours), etc.
My former employer had the same policy at least 15 years ago, well before ACA.
Why should one employer subsidize the group health insurance premium of an employee of a different company, just because they are married? It really makes no sense, given how many households contain dual income earners.
Don't be too quick to gloat. Much could change come contract negotiation time. I won't predict what will happen. Hubristic attitudes are typical of progs, though.
You said the magic word: negotiation.
In other words, you said nothing to contradict my statement that the employer would not be able to unilaterally impose this change on its union workers, the way it could on its nonunion workers.
In other words if those white-collar employees were smart enough to be in a union, or to join the union the drivers and warehouse people are in, the company would not be able to take this kind of unilateral action.
But unions are "outdated" in these times, right?
Actually those unions are fighting Obamacare because they will have to pay cadillac taxes on their insurance plans. That's a 40% excise tax they don't want to pay.
And not only that but the unions are also wanting to drop their lower tier workers from their health insurance and let the workers go sign up for Obamacare.
I was reading a report hat pretty much said the same thing. That starting in 2018 some provision means its cheaper for a worker to insure with employer for self as required by the ACA law and have family thru exchanges even if employer would provide contribution because the contribution will add to employees taxes more than the benefit. Might just be why max Baucus(D) called the plan a train wreck recently. Seems a mess to me.
The fat union elders already have moved to a two tier structure. Keep all excessive pay and or benefits for the older and retired union members and stick the millennial and x gen members with lower pay and lesser benefits. "I got mine. Good luck wit yours."
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Actually those unions are fighting Obamacare because they will have to pay cadillac taxes on their insurance plans. That's a 40% excise tax they don't want to pay.
And not only that but the unions are also wanting to drop their lower tier workers from their health insurance and let the workers go sign up for Obamacare.
Yup. That is true of corporations. When one moves then they all move.
Pensions, 100% paid for health insurance, paid for sabbaticals, paid for continuing education, paid for first class business travel and lodging, meal/travel expense, etc.
One by one they all fell on the wayside.
I worked long enough to see them get cancelled one by one over the years.
I am as old as dirt, too.
My former employer paid 100% for my education. Many companies continue to provide tuition reimbursement. Just not as many as before, or it's capped.
I remember 100% paid for healthcare insurance and pensions, too.
Travel was coach but those who traveled a lot were always able to upgrade to business or first class for a relatively nominal fee the company paid for.
I believe I would be in asking for a raise since at hire most companies claim the benefits are part of their salary, and since they removed a benefits I would expect it to be made up for in CASH. Or better yet find a better job with a better company, I have known several people that worked for them, most did not have a high opinion of the company, even those still working there.
Based on your post I think it's a good bet you don't work much do you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
